Raise from $500 to $1,000 a year the amount an individual can give to a single candidate or political action committee;

Raise from $5,000 to $10,000 a year the amount an individual can give to a political party to influence elections.

Raise from $1,000 to $2,000 a year the amount a political action committee can contribute to a candidate.

Raise from $1,000 to $4,000 a year the amount a political action committee can contribute to a political party.

The bill also makes several changes to the Alaska Public Offices Commission, which is charged with overseeing campaigns.

The agency would hold hearings on election complaints more quickly, have greater latitude in ruling on so-called ''issue ads'' and require electronic reporting by candidates to give the public quicker information on contributions.

Rep. Tom Anderson, R-Anchorage, said the measure also requires candidates to report the names of each person who contributes to a candidate rather than those that give more than $100.

Anderson said the measure is endorsed by the Alaska Public Offices Commission and is meant to adjust the cost of campaigns with inflation.

The Murkowski administration had earlier proposed saving $500,000 by eliminating the commission and having its work transferred to the Division of Elections and the Department of Law.

Murkowski's chief complaint was that the agency moved too slowly in responding to election complaints. The agency had proposed this bill during discussions with the administration.

But critics of the measure say the good done by the bill is overshadowed by the increased limits, which they argue is well in excess of inflation.

They argue the changes repeal elements of a 1996 campaign finance reform law adopted by the Legislature to replace a voter initiative to restrict campaign funding.

Rep. Harry Crawford, D-Anchorage, who worked on that ballot initiative, said he would spend this summer trying to get a similar measure back on the ballot.

The bill allows wealthy contributors to contribute more to candidates who may be influenced by their backing. ''That's why I call it the sugar-daddy bill,'' Crawford said.

The measure could come up for another vote in the House under a procedural move. It would then go to the Senate to consider the changes made to the bill.

Two amendments attempting to roll back the contribution limits proposed in the bill failed. Senate Bill 119 passed 22-15.